[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181006204932.GA27822@amt.cnet>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 17:49:34 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Matt Rickard <matt@...trans.com.au>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] x86/vdso: Cleanups, simmplifications and CLOCK_TAI
support
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
> I've come up with this patch:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/vdso-tglx&id=14fd71e12b1c4492a06f368f75041f263e6862bf
>
> Is it correct, or am I missing some subtlety?
"In the non-fallback case, a bunch of gnarly arithmetic is done: a
hopefully matched pair of (TSC, boot time) is read, then all locks
are dropped, then the TSC frequency is read, a branch new multiplier
and shift is read, and the result is turned into a time.
This seems quite racy to me. Because locks are not held, I don't
see what keeps TSC frequency used in sync with the master clock
data."
If tsc_khz changes, the host TSC clocksource will not be used, which
disables masterclock:
if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old < freq->new) ||
(val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old >
freq->new)) {
*lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq,
freq->new);
tsc_khz = cpufreq_scale(tsc_khz_ref, ref_freq,
freq->new);
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
In which case it ends up in:
- spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
- if (!ka->use_master_clock) {
- spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
- return ktime_get_boot_ns() + ka->kvmclock_offset;
- }
masterclock -> non masterclock transition sets
a REQUEST bit on each vCPU, so as to invalidate any previous
clock reads.
static void kvm_gen_update_masterclock(struct kvm *kvm)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
int i;
struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
struct kvm_arch *ka = &kvm->arch;
spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
kvm_make_mclock_inprogress_request(kvm);
/* no guest entries from this point */
pvclock_update_vm_gtod_copy(kvm);
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
/* guest entries allowed */
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
kvm_clear_request(KVM_REQ_MCLOCK_INPROGRESS, vcpu);
spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
#endif
/*
* If the host uses TSC clock, then passthrough TSC as stable
* to the guest.
*/
host_tsc_clocksource = kvm_get_time_and_clockread(
&ka->master_kernel_ns,
&ka->master_cycle_now);
ka->use_master_clock = host_tsc_clocksource && vcpus_matched
&& !ka->backwards_tsc_observed
&& !ka->boot_vcpu_runs_old_kvmclock;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists